THREE BILLBOARDS, NO WAITING
Mar. 17th, 2018 08:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogI managed to see 3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. And of course, being someone who (1) generally lives outside of the 24/7 media bubble that is America and (2) avoids trailers when I can help it, I went in not really knowing much about it apart from the cast and the director – both of which were enough to convince me to see it. I really enjoyed Martin McDonagh’s Seven Psychopaths, and any film with Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell seems like a good bet.
So naturally, it was only after I saw it that I found out some people were complaining about it – specifically, about the treatment of Sam Rockwell’s character, the dumb violent, racist cop Dixon.
The basic complaint is that he’s set up to be a stereotypical dumb violent, racist cop, and then he’s given a redemption arc that is both unconvincing (i.e. he does almost nothing to earn it) and a middle finger to the black American experience (i.e. giving white cops a shot at redemption is more important than anything white cops have ever done to black people).
So a few thoughts on that:
1. Personally I chalk the racism controversy up to the usual tendency of people viewing everything, including entertainment, through their own sociopolitical lens – which they have every right to do, but it inevitably results in a very different interpretation, depending on how much you expect a particular movie to meet whatever sociopolitical litmus test you want to throw at it.
Also, given the current state of awareness and discussion over racism in America, I reckon many people just aren't in the mood for a story where a dumb violent, racist cop gets a chance to do something good for once in his life. No one wants to hear that story because they don’t want to hear about how racists are people too – possibly because they’re afraid that saying this is tantamount to endorsing racist attitudes, words and actions. Which it isn’t. But some people think it is.
2. That said, I didn't see the story as a redemption arc, because there’s nothing there to suggest that Dixon had changed his mind about racism or even abusive violence. What happened was that he was hit by a triple whammy of experiences – (1) losing his job, (2) the suicide of Chief Willoughby (arguably the only person in town he respected who also happens to be the only person in town who thought he had potential as a cop) and (3) being set on fire – that caused him to rethink his life and reassess why he wanted to be a cop in the first place.
I can believe that (though it might be more believable if they explained just WHY Sherriff Willoughby thought Dixon was a good person “deep down” and worth keeping on the force). But I don’t think it all amounts to a change in heart. By the end of the film, Dixon is really someone at the end of his rope – he’s lost his sense of purpose and has found that even when he tries to do the right thing, he’s still a failure. (The way he tries to solve the murder of Mildred’s daughter is so sloppy – and arguably illegal – that even if it turned out he’d ID’d the right guy, I doubt the evidence would be admissible in court.)
3. Meanwhile, Mildred has reached the same point – her billboard stunt has made her life even worse, and she’s so consumed by rage and helplessness that she’ll even accept the help of someone as despicable as Dixon because by her impossible standards he’s the only one trying. The film establishes early on that Mildred favors Draconian methods to catch and punish rapists and murderers – in which case Dixon is just the man for the job.
You could say that she’s willfully ignoring his racism. But by that stage she’d also reached a point where she’s already firebombed a police station, and at the end of the film is prepared to drive all the way to Idaho to murder a stranger who didn’t kill her daughter but probably killed someone like her daughter, and close enough. Imagine how close to the bottom you’d have to be to decide that was yr best course of action – possibly close enough that you could bring yrself to team up with a racist, if only for convenience.
In a way, whether McDonagh intended it or not, Dixon and Mildred are kind of a metaphor for Trump’s America at the moment – one is an avowed racist, the other one isn't but is willing to throw in with racists because it beats the alternative (accepting that her daughter’s murderer will go free – or, in the GOP’s case, President Hillary).
I admit I may be stretching that metaphor pretty thin. But I do think there are a lot of Mildreds and Dixons in the GOP stable right now.
4. Anyway, as I said, I think people are upset with the film because it doesn’t say what they want it to say about racism in America. And I think that’s because it’s not really a film about racism in America. It’s mainly about Mildred’s rage over her daughter’s murder and the inability (or unwillingness) of the police or anyone else to do something about it, and how far she’ll go to get justice – in this case, she’ll go as far as vigilante justice to punish/kill someone as a proxy for her daughter’s killer. If anything, it’s a movie about how willing some people are to ignore racism for the most selfish of reasons – if they’re angry or desperate enough.
5. So to me, anyway, the movie isn't really about Dixon trying to redeem himself for being a dumb violent racist cop – it’s about Mildred sinking down to his level (except for the racism). The film has its flaws in relaying this, but overall I liked the movie. It’s heavy and bleak, but then so is the subject matter – and credit to McDonagh for avoiding many of the tropes one usually gets with this kind of story.
The downward spiral,
This is dF
So naturally, it was only after I saw it that I found out some people were complaining about it – specifically, about the treatment of Sam Rockwell’s character, the dumb violent, racist cop Dixon.
The basic complaint is that he’s set up to be a stereotypical dumb violent, racist cop, and then he’s given a redemption arc that is both unconvincing (i.e. he does almost nothing to earn it) and a middle finger to the black American experience (i.e. giving white cops a shot at redemption is more important than anything white cops have ever done to black people).
So a few thoughts on that:
1. Personally I chalk the racism controversy up to the usual tendency of people viewing everything, including entertainment, through their own sociopolitical lens – which they have every right to do, but it inevitably results in a very different interpretation, depending on how much you expect a particular movie to meet whatever sociopolitical litmus test you want to throw at it.
Also, given the current state of awareness and discussion over racism in America, I reckon many people just aren't in the mood for a story where a dumb violent, racist cop gets a chance to do something good for once in his life. No one wants to hear that story because they don’t want to hear about how racists are people too – possibly because they’re afraid that saying this is tantamount to endorsing racist attitudes, words and actions. Which it isn’t. But some people think it is.
2. That said, I didn't see the story as a redemption arc, because there’s nothing there to suggest that Dixon had changed his mind about racism or even abusive violence. What happened was that he was hit by a triple whammy of experiences – (1) losing his job, (2) the suicide of Chief Willoughby (arguably the only person in town he respected who also happens to be the only person in town who thought he had potential as a cop) and (3) being set on fire – that caused him to rethink his life and reassess why he wanted to be a cop in the first place.
I can believe that (though it might be more believable if they explained just WHY Sherriff Willoughby thought Dixon was a good person “deep down” and worth keeping on the force). But I don’t think it all amounts to a change in heart. By the end of the film, Dixon is really someone at the end of his rope – he’s lost his sense of purpose and has found that even when he tries to do the right thing, he’s still a failure. (The way he tries to solve the murder of Mildred’s daughter is so sloppy – and arguably illegal – that even if it turned out he’d ID’d the right guy, I doubt the evidence would be admissible in court.)
3. Meanwhile, Mildred has reached the same point – her billboard stunt has made her life even worse, and she’s so consumed by rage and helplessness that she’ll even accept the help of someone as despicable as Dixon because by her impossible standards he’s the only one trying. The film establishes early on that Mildred favors Draconian methods to catch and punish rapists and murderers – in which case Dixon is just the man for the job.
You could say that she’s willfully ignoring his racism. But by that stage she’d also reached a point where she’s already firebombed a police station, and at the end of the film is prepared to drive all the way to Idaho to murder a stranger who didn’t kill her daughter but probably killed someone like her daughter, and close enough. Imagine how close to the bottom you’d have to be to decide that was yr best course of action – possibly close enough that you could bring yrself to team up with a racist, if only for convenience.
In a way, whether McDonagh intended it or not, Dixon and Mildred are kind of a metaphor for Trump’s America at the moment – one is an avowed racist, the other one isn't but is willing to throw in with racists because it beats the alternative (accepting that her daughter’s murderer will go free – or, in the GOP’s case, President Hillary).
I admit I may be stretching that metaphor pretty thin. But I do think there are a lot of Mildreds and Dixons in the GOP stable right now.
4. Anyway, as I said, I think people are upset with the film because it doesn’t say what they want it to say about racism in America. And I think that’s because it’s not really a film about racism in America. It’s mainly about Mildred’s rage over her daughter’s murder and the inability (or unwillingness) of the police or anyone else to do something about it, and how far she’ll go to get justice – in this case, she’ll go as far as vigilante justice to punish/kill someone as a proxy for her daughter’s killer. If anything, it’s a movie about how willing some people are to ignore racism for the most selfish of reasons – if they’re angry or desperate enough.
5. So to me, anyway, the movie isn't really about Dixon trying to redeem himself for being a dumb violent racist cop – it’s about Mildred sinking down to his level (except for the racism). The film has its flaws in relaying this, but overall I liked the movie. It’s heavy and bleak, but then so is the subject matter – and credit to McDonagh for avoiding many of the tropes one usually gets with this kind of story.
The downward spiral,
This is dF
